Bechtel President of Renewables Discusses Ivanpah

What's in Store for Solar Thermal's Future?

ORLANDO --
The Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System, expected to be the largest solar thermal project in the world when it comes online next year, reached the halfway mark of construction in August. Last week at Solar Power International in Orlando, Fla., I sat down with Jim Ivany, president of Bechtel's Renewable Power business, to discuss the company's work on the project and the future of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) in the U.S.

This one-of-a-kind, $2.2 billion project, situated in the Mojave Desert northwest of Needles, Calif., will nearly double the amount of commercial solar thermal electricity produced in the U.S. when it is completed. Ivanpah is composed of three separate plants using BrightSource Energy’s Luz Power Tower technology that will have a combined capacity of 392 MW. The power will be sold to Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison.

Bechtel is providing engineering, procurement, construction and startup services for Ivanpah. The plant employs a steam turbine much like a fossil fuel or nuclear plant. But instead of using a fuel to create steam, BrightSource’s system uses the sun’s energy. The system is composed of more than 300,000 software-controlled mirrors, called heliostats, which reflect the sun’s energy to a boiler atop a tower to produce a high temperate and high-pressure steam.

“The scale and complexity of the Ivanpah project presented first-of-a-kind construction challenges that required innovative thinking and execution at every level,” Ivany said.

Attention to detail and streamlining the process of installing thousands of heliostats has been an imperative for Bechtel. “If you can save 10 to 15 seconds on a single process, the money adds up real quickly. We take a lot of time on the front-end to make sure we’re as efficient as we can be.”

Bechtel created lean approaches to multiple phases of the project, including heliostat assembly installation and construction of the project’s steel towers, which are each topped with 2,200-ton solar receiver steam generators. With a projection that 2,100 people will be employed by Bechtel, BrightSource, NRG Energy and Google at the peak of construction next year, Bechtel strives to get the most out of the man hours.

In terms of the market for solar thermal, it has been slow-moving in the U.S. However, Ivany said PV and CSP should not be compared apples to apples. “Solar thermal doesn’t have to chase PV; it’s a different kind of power.”

CSP will evolve significantly over the coming years, Ivany said. “The technology is improving such that the LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) is going to go down over the years.”

Additionally, the storage potential – like molten salts – at solar thermal plants could give it an advantage compared over PV, Ivany said. Solar thermal is also less intermittent than PV, he said. If cloud cover or other conditions threaten power production, the gas auxiliary boiler on a solar thermal site can be fired up to create steam.

*This article has been corrected from its original version to reflect that BrightSource is not planning to use molten salt storage at Ivanpah.

16 Comments

Speaking....not as a technician/engineer....which I am not..it seems logical that we need to do what our instincts probably tell us.

Man will always 'fight' over energy. After we change our carbon footprint over the next 20 years from coal and nuclear....we'll have arguements as to WHO will sell contracts over our grid. Better to have arguements over who produces what "cleaner" power than to fight and kill one-another over selling what, while killing our atmosphere and regenerative powers of our planet.

Doesn't matter how much something costs...if you can't breath or eat...then money is a moot point. Understanding the exact cost realities and physics of such a plant is important...only as for making them MORE efficient with subsequent build outs....our kids and 10 generations hence will need to live, rest and play in a sustainable world.

All the authors have valid introspective points. Everyone is myopic in some way(s);me included.

At $140/MW CSP is no more expensive than nuclear power, but has the advantage of no emissions, low water use, no contamination, and no expensive and troublesome hazardous waste disposal issues, no terrorism threat, and unlike nuclear power, can be expected to fall in cost as the systems are perfected in use. Those who misrepresent the facts are constant deniers, most pushing nuclear power, and upset at the spot market drops in price that comes from fuel free power supplies. One would think that the evaluations would be based on output and costs that are known. When we see established nuclear and coal industries fighting the installation of solar, we know that they already know that solar will crowd them out of the market, as this has been established where renewable energy makes larger contributions to the market.
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/01/german-utilities-fight-solars-cost-cutting-merit-order-effect/

Offshore production, not likely to be able to install such a system in over 100' of water due to the large mirror farm that is needed for acres around the main tower. Yet it can be installed in a island, and that might be ideal, where the collector is up on some extinct volcano, and the mirrors to the north in front of that steep mountain.

As of phase change of the salt, yes that is how they store the heat for after sunset use. I first learned about Solar 1 by McDonald Douglass Co when I was in 6th grade back in 1977, they had built a mirror system to heat molten salt in Barsto at that time, and it was in production for many years. So this is not unproven technology, it is actually about 30 years old and well proven.

I have no idea how many average MW it will produce between noon and 7 pm, but my guess is if the rates are high enough, they will produce as much as possible, then cut back once the selling rate goes to off peak lower value per MW produced. So a average peak production of 398 MW is probably the goal, and natural gas might be used to produce 10 - 15% of that heat from 3 pm to 6 pm on days when the sales price is right.

James, if BrightSource has plans to convert their Ivanpah fiasco to a molten salt storage facility, they never told that to the California Energy Commission. If they have to change the footprint of the design, they need to stop work and put their new plans under review. It is possible that the Energy Commission would consider such a thing, but all you need to do is some basic research or you can even ask them. BrightSource has no plans to convert Ivanpah to molten salt thermal storage. The article is wrong. BrightSouce is well aware of some of their design flaws for Ivanpah and changed their plan last spring to install more natural gas burners and use 6 more acre feet of water. That had to be reviewed by CEC.

The most interesting aspect of this development is this: Ivanpah also has plans to utilize molten salt storage that will enable the turbines to turn after dark. By providing power to the grid after the sun sets, BrightSource could potentially earn more money from its plant during peak demand times and generally lower the cost of solar.

For those of us who understand the critical component of salt and water reactions, we understand that this is the game changer for renewable micro-grids.

Seems like a lot of speculation in these comments. The fact is that we have no idea what the PPA for the off-taker looks like, so we have no idea whether this will "cost" rate payers. I believe the reference to "must take" laws are incorrect for the California market where utilities start off signing contracts based on the lowest price and move up from there. From what I know the utilities are shielded from being forced to take generation that is too expensive by the CPUC approval process as well. I am not an expert and DETAILS regarding this would be appreciated.

As far as "taxpayers" go, besides investment tax credits, exactly what 'subsidies' would apply to this project? Was there 1603 grant funds distributed? Keep in mind that there are LOTS of other options for the investors in this project besides the credits associated with this project to reduce their tax liability...

These neah-sayers are of the same league with those who put out a ridiculous per-car cost for the Chevy Volt. By that logic, the first car cost $1.2Billion, which of course drops in half the moment the second one comes off the line, and so on. But they don't frame their "boondoggle" argument in those terms because it makes their argument apparently frivilous. I for one vote for investing in highly promising technologies (launching new industries) even if a few don't make it.

Anonymous (Commenter #7) has it exactly right. I just have to laugh at some of the simply knee-jerk, myopic comments posted above. This one of the first few projects of this type in the world and of course will cost more. Hello! That's what innovation is. How much was the first Model A prototype? How much was the first Apollo rocket? How about the first satellite? How about the first cell phone or computer. Remember when VCR's cost $600+? Yes, they did.

You folks who just instantly dismiss things either have little understanding of economics and history, or you are ideologically opposed and will never support these new technologies anyway.

ANONYMOUS
September 21, 2012

I find it amazing how quickly people chime in with condemnation without understanding the project, the technology, micro/macroeconomics, or how effective public/private partnerships work. What happened to the progressive "can do" America that eagerly invested tax payers money on other little "boondoggle" projects like the railway system, the highway system, the internet, ... and yes, our energy sector? Do you have ANY idea how much we have subsidized coal, oil, and natural gas? For the first century it was money well spent as the economic payback has been impressive although fraught with inconvienent side-products now. Our investment in renewables so far is TINY by comparison, and should grow substantially to help us jumpstart the next generation!

Ivanpah will not be using molten salt unless they changed the design. They didn't.. BrightSource (BS- a good name) wants to build molten salt towers for their Siberia proposal, but Ivanpah will need a lot of natural gas back up to even produce. It is a classic boondoggle. The technology has never been tested on that scale. That's why tax payers and rate payers are covering the bill for this gamble.

Solar thermal plants located in deserts usually reach their full nameplate capacity when they are turned on, unlike wind turbines. They even work for hours after dark, as noted in this article. It is true they cannot work late at night, but we do not need generating capacity at night. Even gas turbine plants are closed down at night. Nuclear power cannot be turned off so it is used for 24-hour baseline generation.

Electric power companies are not run by fools. It is not likely they would waste $2.2 billion dollars. Enron wasted that kind of money, but they were not actually producing power or contributing anything useful to the economy.

Ivanpah might average 100 MW. It beats out Cape Wind as the biggest renewable boondoggle in history. It would be the biggest overall except that SDI takes that cake.
Taxpayers and rate payers can only weep.

$2.2 billion/392 MW = $5600/kw...right up there with nuclear, and not a 24 hour source. It would be helpful to know max energy/day, how much storage, is max output rate of 392 MW is only produced at max rate of solar collection (I assume not). How about the thermodynamic efficiency? What salt mixture; is it a phase change heat storage system? What temperature/pressure steam is produced?

I am not hostile to this technology, but would like to see some economics here too. The lack of fuel saves money, but how much?

Great achievement. It is intersesting toknow the overall efficiency of the system; KW generated per square meter compared to available solar KW per square meter. Can this power plant be installed offshore?

Add Your Comments

Former associate editor for Power Engineering magazine where I used to EPA's regulations for the power industry in detail. For renewables, I write about solar and wind-related policies and technologies. I'm a native of Tulsa, Okla. with...